The comment blocks added in #542, #544, #545 and #547 had grown into incident write-ups — measurement runs, prior values, how a problem was found, what a check used to be. That belongs in commit messages and the wiki, which already carry it.
Operative facts kept: which checks are excluded and why they cannot clear, that POOL_NO_REDUNDANCY reports blocked maintenance and not only data risk, and that size 1 needs dedicated OSDs.
Supersedes the original content of this PR, which added 17 more lines of exactly the thing being removed here.
Comment-only, no behaviour change. Net -59 lines.
The comment blocks added in #542, #544, #545 and #547 had grown into incident write-ups — measurement runs, prior values, how a problem was found, what a check used to be. That belongs in commit messages and the wiki, which already carry it.
```
cephcluster.yaml 22 -> 6 (cephx rotation)
cephfs-ci.yaml 26 -> 7 (why size 2)
prometheusrule-ceph.yaml 43 -> 13 (CephHealthWarn)
15 -> 7 (CephPoolLostRedundancy)
```
Operative facts kept: which checks are excluded and why they cannot clear, that `POOL_NO_REDUNDANCY` reports blocked maintenance and not only data risk, and that size 1 needs dedicated OSDs.
Supersedes the original content of this PR, which added 17 more lines of exactly the thing being removed here.
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
🤖Automated review — model claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 (complexity: trivial), commit 607f954558002ede76016b136d66df8ae7890cd8.
Advisory review by the review-bot pipeline. It never approves; a human merges. Push new commits to get a fresh review.
Summary
This is a documentation-only PR that expands the comment explaining why the POOL_NO_REDUNDANCY Ceph health check must not be excluded from alerts. The change clarifies a past mistake (excluding this check for cephfs-ci at size 1) and provides operational context: the check is not just a data-durability warning, but also blocks cluster-wide OSD maintenance operations. No behavior changes.
🟢 Nits
prometheusrule-ceph.yaml:36–52 — The comment block is now 17 lines vs. the original 3. While lengthy, the explanation justifies the length by documenting a non-obvious operational consequence that caused a previous incident; the density is reasonable for a comment explaining a footgun.
Tests
N/A — documentation only.
Recommendation
Looks reasonable — no blocking issues; this documentation improves clarity on why a health check exclusion was a mistake.
🤖 **Automated review** — model `claude-haiku-4-5-20251001` (complexity: trivial), commit `607f954558002ede76016b136d66df8ae7890cd8`.
> Advisory review by the `review-bot` pipeline. It never approves; a human merges. Push new commits to get a fresh review.
---
## Summary
This is a documentation-only PR that expands the comment explaining why the `POOL_NO_REDUNDANCY` Ceph health check must not be excluded from alerts. The change clarifies a past mistake (excluding this check for cephfs-ci at size 1) and provides operational context: the check is not just a data-durability warning, but also blocks cluster-wide OSD maintenance operations. No behavior changes.
## 🟢 Nits
`prometheusrule-ceph.yaml:36–52` — The comment block is now 17 lines vs. the original 3. While lengthy, the explanation justifies the length by documenting a non-obvious operational consequence that caused a previous incident; the density is reasonable for a comment explaining a footgun.
## Tests
N/A — documentation only.
## Recommendation
Looks reasonable — no blocking issues; this documentation improves clarity on why a health check exclusion was a mistake.
<!-- pr-review:sha=607f954558002ede76016b136d66df8ae7890cd8 -->
claude-bot
changed title from docs(monitoring): record why POOL_NO_REDUNDANCY must never be excluded to docs(rook-ceph): cut the narrative out of the ceph manifest comments2026-08-21 20:27:26 +00:00
🤖Automated review — model claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 (complexity: trivial), commit 9a43330701a68ed207a665a679e2d91706048f0e.
Advisory review by the review-bot pipeline. It never approves; a human merges. Push new commits to get a fresh review.
Summary
This PR removes verbose narrative comments from three Ceph-related manifests (prometheusrule-ceph.yaml, cephcluster.yaml, cephfs-ci.yaml), reducing net -59 lines. The changes are comment-only with no functional changes to the actual configurations or alert expressions. The PR retains all operative facts while removing incident write-ups, measurement data, and detailed historical context that belong in commit messages and project wiki.
🟢 Nits
None.
Tests
Not applicable — comment-only change, no behavior to test.
Recommendation
Looks reasonable — no blocking issues; this is a legitimate documentation cleanup that improves readability without losing essential context. All operative facts are retained: why AUTH_INSECURE_* is excluded (kernel limitation, #527), why POOL_NO_REDUNDANCY is in scope (blocks OSD maintenance), why cephfs-ci uses size 2 not 1, and the rationale for the 6h alerting threshold and pool size measurement floor.
🤖 **Automated review** — model `claude-haiku-4-5-20251001` (complexity: trivial), commit `9a43330701a68ed207a665a679e2d91706048f0e`.
> Advisory review by the `review-bot` pipeline. It never approves; a human merges. Push new commits to get a fresh review.
---
## Summary
This PR removes verbose narrative comments from three Ceph-related manifests (prometheusrule-ceph.yaml, cephcluster.yaml, cephfs-ci.yaml), reducing net -59 lines. The changes are comment-only with no functional changes to the actual configurations or alert expressions. The PR retains all operative facts while removing incident write-ups, measurement data, and detailed historical context that belong in commit messages and project wiki.
## 🟢 Nits
None.
## Tests
Not applicable — comment-only change, no behavior to test.
## Recommendation
Looks reasonable — no blocking issues; this is a legitimate documentation cleanup that improves readability without losing essential context. All operative facts are retained: why AUTH_INSECURE_* is excluded (kernel limitation, #527), why POOL_NO_REDUNDANCY is in scope (blocks OSD maintenance), why cephfs-ci uses size 2 not 1, and the rationale for the 6h alerting threshold and pool size measurement floor.
<!-- pr-review:sha=9a43330701a68ed207a665a679e2d91706048f0e -->
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Comment-only, no behaviour change. Net -59 lines.
The comment blocks added in #542, #544, #545 and #547 had grown into incident write-ups — measurement runs, prior values, how a problem was found, what a check used to be. That belongs in commit messages and the wiki, which already carry it.
Operative facts kept: which checks are excluded and why they cannot clear, that
POOL_NO_REDUNDANCYreports blocked maintenance and not only data risk, and that size 1 needs dedicated OSDs.Supersedes the original content of this PR, which added 17 more lines of exactly the thing being removed here.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
🤖 Automated review — model
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001(complexity: trivial), commit607f954558002ede76016b136d66df8ae7890cd8.Summary
This is a documentation-only PR that expands the comment explaining why the
POOL_NO_REDUNDANCYCeph health check must not be excluded from alerts. The change clarifies a past mistake (excluding this check for cephfs-ci at size 1) and provides operational context: the check is not just a data-durability warning, but also blocks cluster-wide OSD maintenance operations. No behavior changes.🟢 Nits
prometheusrule-ceph.yaml:36–52— The comment block is now 17 lines vs. the original 3. While lengthy, the explanation justifies the length by documenting a non-obvious operational consequence that caused a previous incident; the density is reasonable for a comment explaining a footgun.Tests
N/A — documentation only.
Recommendation
Looks reasonable — no blocking issues; this documentation improves clarity on why a health check exclusion was a mistake.
607f954558to9a43330701docs(monitoring): record why POOL_NO_REDUNDANCY must never be excludedto docs(rook-ceph): cut the narrative out of the ceph manifest comments🤖 Automated review — model
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001(complexity: trivial), commit9a43330701a68ed207a665a679e2d91706048f0e.Summary
This PR removes verbose narrative comments from three Ceph-related manifests (prometheusrule-ceph.yaml, cephcluster.yaml, cephfs-ci.yaml), reducing net -59 lines. The changes are comment-only with no functional changes to the actual configurations or alert expressions. The PR retains all operative facts while removing incident write-ups, measurement data, and detailed historical context that belong in commit messages and project wiki.
🟢 Nits
None.
Tests
Not applicable — comment-only change, no behavior to test.
Recommendation
Looks reasonable — no blocking issues; this is a legitimate documentation cleanup that improves readability without losing essential context. All operative facts are retained: why AUTH_INSECURE_* is excluded (kernel limitation, #527), why POOL_NO_REDUNDANCY is in scope (blocks OSD maintenance), why cephfs-ci uses size 2 not 1, and the rationale for the 6h alerting threshold and pool size measurement floor.